Monday, 29 June 2015

This is a scale of how much authority over the
"bottom" is acquired by the "top". It is an attempt to
describe a system of terms which will be useful in discussing the various
phenomena associated with SM, D/s and M/s.

In itself, this ordering is not intended as a value
judgement. However, many people implicitly place higher value on more intense
activities and so something similar to this list is lurking in the subconscious
of many BDSM subcultures. This gives rise to two widespread causes of
antagonism: people looking up the scale with a "even if you're a
submissive (or slave), you're no better than us masochists (or
submissives)" agenda; and people looking down with a "stop pretending
you're really a submissive (or slave), you're just a masochist (or a
submissive)" attitude. It is not unusual for the resulting arguments to
hinge on the word "genuine", as one group is not the genuine article
according to the definition of the other.

My opinion is that most SM vs D/s vs M/s arguments are
caused by the belief that everyone should call themselves whatever they like,
and that common definitions are inappropriate. My belief is that meaningful
communication is impossible without commonly held definitions.

1. Fetish bottom: "I worship your boots and want to
serve them."

Fetish bottoms differ from other types of fetishist in that
the object they eroticise is associated with a top. They are almost invariably
male, and in the pure form have little need to interact with the top or to submit
their will in real life encounters.

2. Masochist: "I want you to use the needles
tonight."

Masochists take things a step further and grant the top
authority to subject them to pain or humiliation, or perhaps to physical
control such as bondage. However, the dynamic of these scenes is still one of
equality, and it is clear that everything is done for mutual gratification.

3. Roleplay submissive: "Can I be the
Girl-Caught-Shoplifting tonight?"

This involves assuming roles for a temporary scene (from a few
hours up to a few days) which would normally be associated with inequality and
with one person having power or authority over the other: for example, a store
detective blackmailing a shoplifter into obeying him. However, it is understood
that the goal of the scene is direct mutual satisfaction for both top and
bottom (eg, that the "shoplifter's" desire to be held down,
"ravished" and sworn at is catered to.)

4. Servant: "What can I do for you now, Sir?"

This can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from a long
term relationship involving roleplay submission. However, the essential feature
of a servant or service orientated submissive / bottom is their desire to do
things purely for their top's benefit (literally, to serve.) Hence, a servant
may derive great satisfaction from doing housework at the top's home.
Nevertheless, this kind of service is voluntary and is an example of
"ongoing voluntary submission". The bottom constantly chooses to stay
and to serve, even if that choice is just implicit in their continued presence
and obedience.

5. Slave: "You have the authority to decide things for
me, Master."

A slave differs from other types of bottom in that they have
no (enforceable) rights with respect to the top. In particular, they cannot
remove themselves from the relationship, and cannot themselves chose to impose
restrictions on what is done to them. This lack of rights in the face of the
top's acknowledged authority over them constitutes ownership. The difference
between a servant and a slave can be summarised by: "Ownership rather than
obedience is the defining quality of slavery; obedience rather than ownership
is the defining quality of submission." -->

There are two further subdivisions:

5a External Enslavement - in which slavery is enforced by
external forces, such as threats to hunt slaves down and retake possession of
them if they run away. This approach has limited plausibility in a modern
society, at least for any length of time.

5b Internal Enslavement - in which slavery is acheived by
forging an emotional bond which the slave cannot extricate themselves from.
This approach is ultimately dependent on the validity of the Internal
Enslavement Hypothesis (in short, that submissives with such a great need to be
owned exist, and that a Master can create a psychological environment in which
that need comes to the fore.)

Sunday, 28 June 2015

This article describes three general principles of use in
Internal Enslavement, which are echoes of maxims in other contexts:

1. Do no harm.

2. Know your slave.

3. Build on foundations.

Do no harm

Clearly harm is a relative concept. However, one must consider
the possible consequences of one's actions to avoid unwanted effects, and by
"harm" I mean unwanted, long lasting damage, to the mind or the body.
In particular, do not underestimate the psychological damage that unpredictable
behaviour or severe punishments can produce: all the way from an inhibiting
nervousness around certain objects to full blown traumatisation, since these
can impede or reverse the Enslavement process.

Know your slave

One needs information to manage any complex system, and the
psyche of a developing slave is no exception. The proper study for a Master is
his slave.

Practices such as the keeping of a slave journal, or regular
face to face debriefing sessions are manifestations of this principle. They
attempt to gain access to the slave's inner life, which is usually a private
world in free persons and is often remarkably different to what the Master
might expect.

The evolving history of a slave's inner world is the slave's
Enslavement, and to manage it successfully, the Master must become that
country's historian, its prophet and its leader.

Build on foundations

Mere factual knowledge and expertise, such as position
training, is only the surface expression of service and obedience. If it is
only skin deep, the Master's possession of the slave is no more than skin deep.
It is true that superficial training, using the rational mind of the slave,
plays an important part in the deeper, emotional changes we seek, but they are
two distinct layers.

It is hard work creating new beliefs and attitudes from
scratch, since these emotional states are built up by experience over time. But
it is these emotional states which we are seeking to grow and guide in the
process of Internal Enslavement: by finding what is there already that can be
used and expanded, our work can be done more easily and more naturally, in a
way suited to where the slave actually is.

Conclusion

In summary, no adult human is a blank slate: everything you
do to a slave is in the context of the inner self produced by their past
history. By studying the slave, and building on and adapting what is already
there, one can benefit from the current reality of the slave's state rather
than fighting against it. With this solid foundation, the slave can grow
naturally, guided by her Master's requirements, and her service can be molded
to suit his requirements with external training which is informed rather than
blind.

(The original version of this article appeared as part of
the Internal Slave Development Manifesto in March 1999)

Many people talk about the child inside the submissive.
Their "inner child" or the "little girl inside". So many,
infact, that there must, undeniably, be something in it. I know that I have had
far more experiences in a "child-like" state since entering the
process of Internal Enslavement than I ever had previously. If I am honest,
probably more than I have had since being a very small child myself.

In many ways the kind of upbringing I had led to my growing
up fast. Living with two parents who hated being in the same room as each other
meant that I spent whatever time I could out of the house. I grew up fast,
infact you could say that I was adult before my time.

IE freed the child in me, but that doesn't mean that I am
childish, although, in many ways I can be very childlike. Equally, I do not
enter a state of being childlike and find myself annoyingly trapped there. I am
as capable of actively using the adult in me as I am using the child (at least
nowadays I am, anyway.)

So what does this all mean? Am I just a little girl wanting
a good "father-figure"? Could it be true that in order to achieve M/s
a Dominant needs to parent a perpetual grown child? Personally, I find this
hard to believe.

Eric Berne describes the Child as one of 3 ego states in his
description of "Transactional Analysis" (TA). In brief, he describes
3 ego states which he named "Adult", "Parent" and
"Child". The "Parent" can be described as "controlling
and nurturing", The "Adult" as "sensible and logical"
and the "Child" as "playful and childlike". Infact it is in
the ego state of "Child" that we experience most joyously and equally
most tragically, our lives.

I feel that I should point out now that my embarrassingly
brief explanation of what took Berne a career to develop does not, by any
means, do it justice. I can only say that, if you are in the slightest bit
interested in TA, you could do worse than reading Eric Berne's "Games
people play" or Claude Steiner's "Scripts people live". I read
them both and found them fascinating.

I have come to realise that, for many years now, the child
in me was supressed, mostly because she is the one hurt by the world outside.
This meant that, although I could use and control my Adult and Parent ego
states, I lost the ability to access the Child and this left me incomplete. Not
that far into the process of IE something strange started happening to me. I
began to feel afraid of loosing myself again. Of course, on the surface of
things, this didn't make sense. Logically I knew I needed slavery, I also was
beginning to realise that to be whole again I had to regain the ability to use
my Child ego state freely. However, what I began to experience was the Child
running wild. For a time this felt wonderfully freeing, but, after a while, I
felt as though I was being smothered by it. The Child was running free at the
expense of my other 2 ego states.

The Parent and the Adult aspects of me are the ones I have
relied on for survival for such a long time. I know how they work and I have
learned, over time, which ego state copes best in what situation.

The Child in me was hidden away for so long that, for a
time, I felt unpredictable in that ego state. I found myself acting in ways I
would have never done before. I also began to find it progressively more
difficult to switch to a more appropriate ego state than Child, for example,
when I felt scared it's would have been better for me to use my Adult or Parent
ego states than the Child ego state (I experience things far more intensely and
less logically in "Child" than I do in either Adult or Parent.)

Whenever I delt with situations, inappropriate for a Child
ego state, I ended up feeling frustrated, I was having tantrums or sulks and at
times I was begining to thoroughly annoy myself (goodness only knows how Tanos
put up with me!)

In some ways this gave me a very real sense of loosing
myself, in that I didn't always feel in control of my own emotions. At that
time I was awash with childish reactions and emotions and I really didn't know
how to deal with them, or even if I should be attempting to.

In the end I just let them go and stopped trying to suppress
them. Sometimes it really is better to let go of the old in order to embrace
new ways of handling things. (How I wish it was as easy to do as it is to just
say these words.)

I know now that Tanos stayed in control of the situation
throughout my transition, but, at the time, I was still scared. He told me to
let go and trust him and I knew that was exactly what I needed to do, but
saying it didn't make it happen (time did that instead.)

Knowing how this all affected me, and knowing what I have
learned about the ego states, I am convinced of how unhealthy it would be for
anyone to be encouraged to use just one ego state. By encouraging the use of
one ego state (Child) at the expense of the others (Adult and Parent) would be
to deny us from using the very things which have kept most of us (particularly
submissives) safe all our lives. We would become incapable of using all the
healthy ways of coping, with life and with ourselves.

For a while I went through a stage of only being able to
access my Child ego state with Tanos. I believe this had alot to do with the
fact that I had supressed my Child as a way of coping with life, myself. So
when I finally found a safe place to be the Child, I ran amock as a Child. I
over used it, because I was so delighted in the way it made me feel. I enjoyed
things in a completely different way, in a way I had forgotten how to.

In the end I just irritated myself to death with it. I feel
far more balanced now, I am better able to bring the appropriate ego state into
play, sometimes with prompting by Tanos (usually as a response to his present
ego state.)

Tanos has an extremely strong Adult, something that
gradually has helped me to connect to my own weakened Adult. I'm not too sure,
now, how much of our relationship is actually Parent - Child. We spend a great
deal of our time in Adult - Adult as well as Adult - Child interactions.
Ofcourse there is an element of Parent - Child but we also have quite alot of
Child - Child too (especially when we are doing and enjoying the things we like
doing together!)

Conclusion

I must admit that I am unconvinced that
"parenting" is what, fundamentally, underpins an M/s relationship,
although it does, to some degree, seem to be part and parcel of accessing the
submissive's inner self. I suppose if we accept that everyone has an inner
Parent, Adult and Child then a Master who is able to access and even control
those ego states, will be gaining access to a better understanding of his slave
as well as gaining the ability to control her ego states as an appropriate and
desired response to his own. I realise, with hindsight, that Tanos and I have
been working in the past in compatible ego states, without having prior knowledge
of what they were called. I certainly, and quite obviously, switch P-A-C ego
states in response to Tanos. I am not his child, although I have a little child
inside me, but then, according to Eric Berne, so do you.

About Me

There are a number who give themselves the most fanciful of
names that frankly, often, leave them hoisted by their own petard.

I am a most grounded and level-headed man. Most Doms/Masters or
professional dominants, choose a name that embodies them. How did I select
mine? There is double-entendre behind 'Strokes' - it may mean with a whip - it
may be with the gentleness of my hand's caress.
I am far more interested in your psychology and what makes you tick than I am in satisfying
my own ego

Rule 1 in my book is that one can never treat
all the same way; everyone is individual and
unique and as such needs to have
the way in which they are treated tailored to their own motivational influences
- some are core to the individual whilst others are circumstantial to that
moment in time. Stick does most certainly have its place but care no less so!

For the last 100 years Society has been telling women that
they need to stand tall as equals: beginning with the likes of Emmeline
Pankhurst and the Suffragettes through
to taking-on what was formerly viewed as men's roles through the 'Great Wars',
only to have them removed when the men returned home, to having role-models
ranging from Mother Theresa to Madonna, Margaret Thatcher to the English
Monarch. Yet how many have complained that they have a partner who does not
'behave like a man' or that they have not felt 'protected and /or cared for'!?
There is as much a power struggle WITHIN for many women as there is an open
struggle for equality. For as long as you have been able to remember Society
has dictated that you need to continue that battle. Is it not indeed the
stronger women that can face the world and
say, "This is not necessarily my need or at least not in all
regards!"?

Indeed most of the women that I have dominated and whom have
become my submissive / slave over the years have been bright, articulate, well
educated and, in many cases highly successful in their careers; ranging from
legal professionals to high-powered business women to one of my most recent, I
have named her 'rouge', who heads-up one of the UK's most prestigious schools
of medical learning.

I come from a world
of regimentation, hard and fast rules of
order, structure and discipline. Can you
imagine a platoon of soldiers in battle deciding that they would all 'do their
own thing'? I have not only 'served' my nation but also a Mistress to learn a
number of protocols within the Scene many years ago. I am a great believer in
the ancient Chinese proverb, "I hear - I forget; I see - I remember; I do
- I understand". Order, reverence, humility and etiquette - all are immensely
valued by Me - all will be practiced by you!